Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-15 TranscriptionAugust 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 1 of 40 Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilbum UISG Rep: Schreiber Staff: Atkins, Helling, Fosse, Dilkes, Franklin, Karr, Boothroy, O'Brien, Cate, Craig Tapes: 05-47 (Side B) & 05-05 (Side A) Planning and Zoning Items Lehman: Work Session...Planning and Zoning. ITEM A. CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 92 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL (ID-RS) ZONE TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY - SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-5) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF KENNEDY PARKWAY AND EAST OF CAMP CARDINAL ROAD (REZ03-00019) Franklin: Okay. Our first item is Cardinal Ridge. There have been some developments in this project, relative to the sewer, which I want to address first. As I pointed out in a memorandum...there are copies to the Council and the press has them, I don't know if there's any other interested parties that need them, we'll certainly get them to you...the issue has to do with the extension of sanitary sewer lines to the property to the south. I guess this is probably the best illustration. What we're talking about is the ability to get sewer to the Nepola Family Enterprises property, which is this piece right here, and to the Ahrens property. In the code, and I'm going to flip forward a little bit here...first of all, this is a rezoning...keep in mind that this is a rezoning, however, when we look at the rezonings we look at infrastructure needs and the ability of the project to meet our subdivision regulations, which is all about providing infrastructure. Part of the infrastructure is the sanitary sewer. One of the provisions in our subdivision code is that which you see before you...and I'll stress the one line that says 'sanitary sewer shall extend to the subdivision boundaries and beyond as necessary to provide for the extension of sanitary sewers to adjacent property'. The whole reason for that is to enable the progression of development in the city. That provision may be modified or waived by the City Council, on it's own motion, if the sub-divider can demonstrate that strict compliance of the requirements of this - that's Article C is what you're looking at above - would result in extraordinary hardship, that hardship caused by unusual topography, excessive cost, or other such non-self- inflicted conditions, or it would conflict with the objectives of the regulations. The burden is on the sub-divider to show those reasons why it should be waived or modified. It may also be waived or modified if the sub-divider can demonstrate that it would result in poor subdivision design or could result in substantial degradation of natural features. If those things are shown, the Council This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 2 of 40 may then modify or waive the requirement only if you find that the public interest is protected and that the modification or waiver will not nullify the intent of the regulation...that is to extend sewer to allow future development. The properties in question...the Ahrens piece - which is here - and I understand also that there is a portion of this piece that is also owned by Ahrens, such that the Nepola property comes here, extends to the east a tad, goes up into this kind of finger, and then comes around. These are the two properties that abut the Cardinal Ridge property to the south. I want to show you an aerial photograph which, I think, will make clearer how this property lays out. The Cardinal Ridge property extends from this point at the south to all the way up to right here. The Ahrens property is this rectangle right here. This is the Nepola property right here. These wooded areas indicate slopes and those slopes are to the north, so all of this property here goes down toward this drainage way that goes through Cardinal Ridge. A trunk line will be installed by Southgate Development Company as part of the Cardinal Ridge Development. The question is, there requirement for them to extend sewer south from this trunk line down to these two properties, the Nepola property and the Ahrens property. Both the Nepola property and the Ahrens property have one of the other primary factors that's necessary for development and that is access. Albeit not the most beautiful access. Camp Cardinal Road right of way is here, which abuts both the Nepola property and the Ahrens property. So, but for the rezoning that would be necessary and sewer, this property could develop today. The only way to sewer these properties here is from the north. Now, as we talked about this before, we were taking into consideration the Pirkl property which is down here. There's a logic that the development is likely to happen from Melrose Avenue north in terms of what the reality will be in the long run, however, the code says we have to provide for extension for sanitary sewer to the boundaries of the subdivision to provide for the adjacent property. So, these are the only properties we really can think about at this point in time in terms of meeting that obligation. Lehman: Karin, can you show us on the photograph, the indentation that appears on the map on the wall? Franklin: From what I have learned today, there is ten acres right here that was purchased by Ahrens that goes with this property. Lehman: Is it possible to extend one line that would serve both those properties? Franklin: Not completely. That is, if you extended a line here - which would be the shortest distance for Southgate Development Company - it does not appear that you could then serve this part of the Nepola property because of these two ravines here. This ravine you couldn't get across. You would have to be bringing sewer uphill to get it over to here. This afternoon we received a concept plan for the Nepola property which shows a sewer line running here to serve this area, which it probably would serve that area. We have not had an opportunity to do a full analysis of this in terms of your question, Ernie, to see if there is one line would This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 3 of 40 serve both, however, even if we were to have the line be right here at the closest point at which the Nepola property hits the Cardinal Ridge property. It still requires the Ahrens property to get something from the Nepola property in order to be able to develop. If the Nepola properties were never to develop and the Ahrens wished to develop the sewer would not have been extended south to his property to enable that to happen. Lehman: Part of my thought was that is it possible to make an extension in to the Nepola property in a proximity close enough to the Ahrens property where it's just a minor take off of the sewer to run across the property line. Franklin: Well, the provision in the code is that Southgate would extend it to their south property line. If we were to go at this point here then there is all this distance in the Nepola property before you get to Ahrens. I can't answer that absolutely, Ernie, because it requires us to look at where exactly the sewer line is, the depth of the sewer line in relation to the topo...we just got this thing this afternoon. So, ! can't answer that unequivocally. There are difficulties with it because of the nature of the topography here, in that you've got a piece over here that is on a finger of...these are two fingers of land going north here. You can't break the line across this way because you've got a ravine you're going through...the pipe would be out of the ground or it would so deep it would not meet our standards. Lehman: Let me ask...then according to the code, would Southgate be required to extend two sewer lines to Nepola properties because of that? Franklin: According to the strict reading of the code, yes. That to serve the adjacent properties, the Ahrens property and the Nepola property, who are the adjacent properties - Lehman: No, I'm talking about Nepola only. You showed us on that map that there's - Franklin: If it's to serve Nepola only, then only one line would be necessary, however, there are two adjacent properties. Lehman: No, I understand that. Elliott: But I thought you said the Ahrens property does not abut the Cardinal Ridge property in question. Franklin: Yes, it does. Elliott: Oh, it does? Franklin: The Ahrens property is this piece here and then there's also evidently ten acres that's right in here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 4 of 40 Elliott: So the code says that if there are two adjacent abutting ones that they would have to provide for both of them. Franklin: It doesn't say that expressly, it says that you have to provide sewer to adjacent property. Elliott: Properties? Franklin: Properties. Well, let's go - Dilkes: It says 'sanitary - Franklin: 'Sanitary sewer shall extend to the subdivision boundaries and beyond as necessary to provide for the extension of sanitary sewers to adjacent property'. There are, in this instance, at the south boundary, two adjacent properties. Elliott: In legal reading, the property there looks singular. Does that mean property as a collective noun? Wilburn: Looks plural to me. Franklin: It would be plural because if it were to be singular it would say to an adjacent property. Elliott: Okay. Dilkes: It wouldn't make any sense for it to read 'an adjacent property'. Franklin: No, it wouldn't. Elliott: Why does it say 'and beyond'? Franklin: We have the ability in our code, although I don't know that we have ever used it in my experience to require a subdivider to extend the sewer beyond the boundaries of their subdivision. We're not even talking about that. We're just talking about going to the line. Okay? Now, it may be, and this again is a technical question which as we look at the concept plan that was submitted to us with this 10 acres here in Ahrens...if there is point, right there, in which that sewer could come to the boundary line, in which both properties could access it, that may meet the requirements of the code. There are three options this Council has...and those are on your memo. One, the simplest but not the one that necessarily makes everybody happy...there probably isn't one that makes everybody happy. The simplest one is requiring the extension of sanitary sewer line to these properties, to the Nepola property and the Ahrens property as provided by law. Number two, based on a demonstration by the developer of a justification for a waiver or modification, accept the blanket sewer easement that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 5 of 40 has been suggested in the CZA. Escrow for 110% of the cost, which is our usual escrow amount for any public improvement, there would be no time limit, and that escrow could be returned to the sudivider of Cardinal Ridge if the development of the south is accomplished without the sewer extension. The only way that can happen is if these Nepola and Pirkl properties are combined to get you down to that southerly drainage area and sewer extension. There is two places where sewer comes west out of Walnut Ridge. This point and at this point. The third option, again, depending upon a demonstration of a justification for waiver or modification by the developer, is to accept a blanket sewer easement without escrow. If the Council finds that the public interest is protected thereby and that this modification would not nullify the intent of the subdivision regulations to extend sanitary sewer. As far as staff is concerned, we do not see how you could support number three, given that would provide access to sanitary sewer for the developers to the south but would not way would it provide for the extension of the sanitary sewer line. That's where we are. Lehman: Now, this is on...we have a public hearing continued tomorrow night... Franklin: Yes. Lehman: Which I think requires a signed conditional zoning agreement. Franklin: There is a signed conditional zoning agreement that we have from Southgate Development that includes the provision for the sanitary sewer with escrow at $26,000 as was presented to the Council originally and was the subject of the public hearing two weeks ago. Elliott: That was with the time limit. Franklin: With a time limit of fifteen years and the escrow would be returned if development occurred without the sewer or fifteen years transpired, whichever came first. Elliott: Karin, what would this property to the south, which seems to be in question...what would it be doing if Southgate were not developing the property to the north? Franklin: The Nepola property? Elliott: Yeah, ! mean what would...ifthere were no sewer to the north, what would it do for a sewer? Franklin: It wouldn't be able to develop until something came from the south or they acquired an easement to get over to this line here, or acquired more land to put in the trunk sewer themselves. That happens, Bob, it happens all the time. The development of some land is dependent upon the development of other but as This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 6 of 40 development occurs, we provide for the progression of that development within our corporate limits. Elliott: Does it not occur then, that the land to the south is somewhat dependent upon the land of the development of the land to the north therefore the land to the south should share some of the cost? Franklin: The land to the south is also dependent upon...maybe dependent upon the development of the lands to it's south, the Pirkl property...because the other way this could development would be that these properties were all combined and it access the sewer at this point. Dilkes: The question of whether they should or not...that' s a policy question...but we're dealing with an ordinance that has already been written and there were policies or decisions made, presumably, when it was written and it says that unless...that you have to extend the sewer as necessary to provide sewer to adjacent properties. As I understand how this developed.., except there is a relief clause here...if you can show that there are hardships that would make it so you shouldn't have to do that or unusual circumstances...but that is the code that we're dealing with. When the original discussion was had about escrow, there was an understanding, which, now it appears was false, that there were two possible ways to sewer that Nepola property...one, you know, from the south and one from the north...and so we determined that we couldn't determine exactly that it was necessary to have the sewer from the north. So that was how that came about. Then, Nepola and his attorney got involved and we had discussions with them, and I understand there haven't really been discussions between Southgate and Mr. Wilson but in any event the City has had a number of discussions with Mr. Wilson and it does not...it appears that it's necessary to get the sewer from the north in order for that property to develop. Franklin: If you look at the Nepola property, in isolation, which is really how we have to do it with the code, the only way it can be sewered is from the north. Dilkes: Now, if Southgate could demonstrate that they meet the provisions of this 14-7A- 7, which is kind of the hardship provision, I call it, then the Council can allow them to get out from the strict requirement of 14-7A-7. Elliott: So, are you saying that what was discussed last week...an escrow from fifteen years is no longer legally viable? Dilkes: That' s my opinion. Lehman: What I think I hear you saying is that the only way the northern most portion of Nepola property can be developed is to have access to a sewer going through Southgate's property, which would require the extension of the sewer to the Nepola's property line. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 7 of 40 Franklin: Yes. Lehman: Okay, so if we're going to...we're going to open the public hearing tomorrow night. If we're going to act on this thing, we're going to have to make some amendments tomorrow night.., is... will we know tomorrow night if folks are ready to proceed or wish to proceed or wish to defer or continue the hearing? Franklin: I can not speak for Southgate at this point and time. Obviously this is something that they're going to have to deal with, one way or another. They have signed a CZA, they see no reason to change it because it's satisfactory to them. If we're done with the sewer issue .... Dee, did you have something on the sewer? Vanderhoef: Yeah, because what I was reading in the packet is that they signed a CZA that was with the escrow to build later on, but now tonight I'm hearing the potential is there for two sewer lines if Ahrens would develop before the Nepola property would develop then it would require two sewer lines down, or potentially two and $26,000 through this kind of terrain... Franklin: Is not going to get you one. Vanderhoef: Yeah...let alone two. Franklin: Right. Vanderhoef: So that's real difficult for me to tolerate at this point. Lehman: I don't know how we can - Dilkes: I think the public heating has been continued until tomorrow. Presumably you will hear from the interested parties and if you need time to discuss it then you can do it tomorrow, or you can continue it, obviously you will have to if there is not a CZA that is acceptable to the City Council. Lehman: But there is a new issue that has come up tonight that I was familiar with earlier and that was the Ahren's property. We did not discuss that last time. We do not know as of right now whether or not a single line can go towards that property and branch off to serve both of them. We don't know if there has to be two complete lines. We really don't know. Franklin: I can tell you with some confidence, not being an engineer, but the public works director is sitting right behind you, so I'm sure he'll jump up if I'm wrong, that there is not a single line that could go to both properties and serve the entirety of the Nepola property. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 8 of 40 Lehman: Well, there may not be a single line that can serve the entirety of the Nepola property anyway. Franklin: No, there is. Lehman: There is? Franklin: Yes. Lehman: Even with those ridges? Franklin: At this point a line could come up through this draw and serve both of these fingers of property on the Nepola property...but if you're coming over here with it, then you have to get across this draw to get to this property, otherwise you've got sewer going uphill...sewage going uphill over this street and down here...and it just doesn't work that way unless this has a lift station, which then is more operations and maintenance cost for the City. Lehman: So, what we're really saying is that there will undoubtedly be two sewer lines. One to Ahrens and one to Nepola at two different locations? Franklin: Yeah. Lehman: Okay. Franklin: Okay, before we leave this whole topic...secondary access...the conditional zoning agreement that is before you that was signed by the developers has a provision in it in which it requires that before there is further platting of Outlot E or Outlot G, that a traffic analysis would be completed by the City and if secondary access were found to be needed within our guidelines, that secondary access would need to be provided before those plats were approved. I have to tell you also that I provided another provision to the developers which they have rejected...they did not accept signing that...and that was that thirteen lots in northwest comer of Cardinal Ridge, which would be this loop street here, the provision was that no building permits would be issued on these thirteen lots until a similar traffic analysis were done by the City and if it were found that secondary access were needed at that time, building permits would not be issued on those lots until secondary access was provided. That was not acceptable to the developers so it is not part of the CZA that they have signed. The other thing that ! would like to make clear has to do with this whole secondary access issue and the adequacy of Camp Cardinal Road...because I know that Lynette has written to you with questions about that. When we did an analysis of this development, with Cardinal Ridge and Walnut Ridge, within our secondary access guidelines, we found that by our analysis that secondary access was not required. Camp Cardinal Road provides another way of getting in and out of this area. It provides a secondary access. That is, if you had to get emergency vehicles in, if you had to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 9 of 40 get cars out, if you had to get construction equipment in, or whatever in, you could do that on Camp Cardinal Road. What I was indicating the Council was that in my opinion, if we were to require secondary access, which we are not by our policy now, but if we were to require secondary access, that Camp Cardinal Road is not a road that we would want to use to meet that requirement, so I hope that that clears things a little. Lehman: Are their road standards in the code for secondary access? Franklin: No. You mean road standards? Lehman: Yeah. Franklin: No, we usually...I mean it's a street built to City standards. Lehman: Well, Camp Cardinal is not built to City standards. Franklin: It is not, it is not even close and the grade on the Camp Cardinal Road is steep. Lehman: So it couldn't be a secondary access as we know a secondary access. Franklin: Not a required secondary access, but could it provide another way in which people get in and out of here, yes, it could. Vanderhoef: And the safety issue for a secondary access usually we're requiring it because we want to be sure that we can get emergency vehicles in there and this meets that criteria of getting them in there. Franklin: But you wouldn't want a lot of people using that road...in particularly, teenage drivers barreling down Camp Cardinal Road going north. Vanderhoef: I'll ask it .... ahhh...I'm thinking out loud...and this is dangerous .... ahhh...could it be gated for a safety secondary access? Franklin: What I was talking about is if we are at the point where we are going to require secondary access, that secondary access must be a road that meets City standards, that there are no limitations on it. So, no... Lehman: It would not be a secondary access road. Franklin: Because what we're talking about here with the issue of Walnut Ridge is not so much about emergency vehicle access, it's about traffic. That's what the neighborhood is concerned about, traffic. So, you want a road that is going to serve it well. Champion: Can we go back to the sewer? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 10 of 40 Franklin: Oh, I suppose. Champion: So, is staff saying that we want Southgate to put in two sewer extensions? Is that what you're saying? Franklin: To comply with our code we believe that's necessary. I will point out that as we started negotiations on this development at the staff level we started with three sewer lines to the south. Champion: My point at the last public hearing was that if we don't know where it's going to be useful then why would we put it in, but now you think there is a plan of where it can go and be usable, is that correct? Franklin: You can always have a hypothetical plan of where it could go and be usable, it still may be that in reality, when development happens in this area, that this happens in the south going north and the sewer all comes from the south...but we don't have control over the Pirkl property. The Nepola's do not have access to the Pirkl property and that is what it has been all about. Champion: Thank you. Franklin: You bet. ITEM B. CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.19 ACRES FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1) ZONE AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH DODGE STREET AND DODGE STREET COURT, EAST OF CONKLIN LANE (REZ05-00003). Franklin: The next item is the rezoning of the North Dodge Street Court property from RZ- 8 to CI-1. The issue when we came out of the public hearing was an objection on the part of the developer to the inclusion of the reference to brick buildings. We have modified that language and it is now acceptable to the developers and provides for some flexibility in architectural materials, so as far as that is concerned, this is ready to go. We have had protests to this rezoning. At the last count it was at 16%. I'll let you know exactly what it is tomorrow. Lehman: Twenty is the - Franklin: Twenty is what requires extraordinary majority vote. ITEM C. AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF ALLEY RIGHT- OF- WAY LOCATED IN THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD FIRST ADDITION. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 11 of 40 Franklin: Item C is a public heating on the conveyance of the alleys in the Peninsula First Addition. This is very similar with what we did with the second addition, it's just transferring them to private ownership. ITEM D. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 3.16 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (ID-RS) ZONE TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-5) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 218 AND SOUTH OF MELROSE AVENUE. (REZ05-00008). (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin: Item D is second consideration on Galway Hills, that triangle by the interstate. ITEM E. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.72 ACRES FROM FACTORY-BUILT HOUSING RESIDENTIAL (RFBH) ZONE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING-HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (PDH-12) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF HEINZ ROAD (REZ05-00009). (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin: Item E is second consideration on the Saddlebrook Development and expedited consideration has been requested. ITEM F. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF MWD DAVIS ADDITION, A PORTION OF WHICH INCLUDES A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 13-17 OF RH DAVIS SUBDIVISION, AND A PORTION OF OLDE OAK LANE IN RIt DAVIS SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, IOWA (SUB05-00009) (DEFERRED FROM 7/19 AND 8/2) Franklin: Item F we're going to ask you to defer that to September 6th. Again, we do not have construction plans that are finalized. ITEM G. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF OLDE TOWNE VILLAGE, IOWA CITY, IOWA (SUB05-00016) Franklin: Likewise with Item G, we are still awaiting revised or we have revised construction plans, they just came in today so we need to review those. So, defer that to September 6th, please. ITEM H. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF BROOKWOOD POINTE FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA (SUB05-00017) Franklin: Item H...Brookwood Pointe, which is off Sycamore Street. This is the final plat and this is ready to go. Legal papers and construction plans...the one unusual thing about this for you to be aware of, typically, we would not have this large This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 12 of 40 outlot in a final plat, we would just plat it to here and that would be the end of it, but in this case the storm water management is in this part of the subdivision so we need to include it for that with drainage easements to it. Also there is a sanitary sewer easement that is being provided that will enable the sanitary sewer to be put in to provide sewer to Sand Hill going to the edge of this subdivision. Lehman: Who is paying for that? That one, I think the City is paying a portion...Rick? Fosse: The oversizing. Franklin: Oversizing we're paying, otherwise who is paying for the undersizing - er, regular sizing? Fosse: I believe the developer is. Franklin: Brookwood Pointe? Fosse: That's my understanding. Lehman: They're extending the property to the Sand Hill, which is Southgate's property? Franklin: Yes. Lehman: Thank you. Champion: Well, isn't that interesting. Franklin: One of those things.., extension... Vanderhoef: Karin, on the location map for this, there is an L section around Whetherby Park that is still II)RS. Franklin: Ooh, that should be P. Vanderhoefi Is that what we already purchased? Franklin: I think so. Vanderhoef: Well, I wondered if we were purchasing some more. Franklin: This must be an old map. No, we're not purchasing more, that should be P. Vanderhoefi Okay, well then...ahhhh... Franklin: It either needs to be rezoned or we just have the wrong map here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 13 of 40 Vanderhoef: Tell me...ahhh...about the land dedication or money in lieu of land for parkland. Has that been satisfied for this...ahhh....property? Franklin: I can't remember what this one is...it's fee's in lieu of...it will have to be when the building permit is sought, when the first building permit is... Vanderhoefi ! guess the question is whether we would want any more to go with Whetherby that... Franklin: At the time...I'm going in my memory here...when we did the preliminary plat on this I remember we had some discussion of open space and the decision at that time was that we were going to get some trail access here through this property and we're not...Parks and Recreation did not want to go further with Whetherby Park because it would be kind of a little odd bump off the side. All of these, as soon as they come in as a preliminary plat they go to the Parks and Recreation Commission and then the Parks and Recreation Commission tells Planning and Zoning and the staff whether they think it's more appropriate for fees in lieu of or park dedications. So, this would have been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Vanderhoef: And this is all...both the...ahhh...RS-5 and the RS-8 are really flat topography so there isn't anything that would be of interest other than trails on sidewalks, more than likely. Franklin: Yeah. Lehman: Okay? Vanderhoefi Thanks. Franklin: I'm done. Lehman: Thank you. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS Lehman: Council Appointments. I think there were two applications for the PCRB. O'Donnell: I like Larson. Elliott: Michael Larson. Champion: Okay. Lehman: We have four for Michael Larson. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 14 of 40 Vanderhoefi That's fine with me. I think they're both good candidates. It's a real toss-up here. Champion: There are two males and two females. Vanderhoef: I looked at that, too. AGENDA ITEMS Lehman: Agenda items? ITEM 6. APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE JC DogPAC DOG PARK PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. Elliott: Number 6, I want to talk about, that's the Dog Park. At least I am...my initial approval of this was enthusiastic in that the City would provide the land, the Dog Park people would take care of- Atkins: Rick, don't leave. Excuse me, Bob. Elliott: Would take care of development and operation of the Dog Park and then we would put in a very temporary road and parking area and now I'm looking at the City fronting about $140,000 to be paid back. I would see this as a pay as you go project. Champion: Wait a minute, we were always going to put in the road and the parking. Lehman: Right, but that was $76,000 and not $140,000. Bailey: What is the add alternate? Vanderhoef: That's that pond. Bailey: Right, so... Vanderhoefi That's what I had questions about. Bailey: I had a question mark. Vanderhoef: The time-flame for the pay back for the initial $76,000 and then if there...whether we were going to have an alternate bid for the pond and get an idea of if there were savings and if so, how much, by putting in the pond. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 15 of 40 Atkins: The Council gave a tentative to a $70,000 loan. That is basically a loan to the Dog Park folks. It's an unsecured loan that those monies were to be used for the development of the dog park. That's it. The road was always going to be constructed and the parking lots was going to be constructed. Now, it made sense to combine them and these are bid estimates. If, for example, they were to exercise the option on the pond, that's not our expense. That's their expense. All you've agreed to from a financial perspective is $70,000 in a short-term note, prepayable to us for this project. Elliott: My recollection of that meeting is that you asked the Council, 'Is there an interest is me putting together a proposal to bring to you?'. Atkins: And I would, Bob, at the time of the bids because then we would know exactly what the financial circumstances were financially. Elliott: I'm not interested in a loan at this point. Dilkes: You haven't agreed to anything at this point. You gave staff the go ahead in concept and the idea is that when...on your agenda is the award of this project. There will also be a loan agreement on the agenda at the same time. Lehman: Steve, I'm not sure I have this clear. This $140,000 includes the road and the parking lot? Atkins: No, it does not. It's just for the dog park. Rick, do you want to go to the microphone? Lehman: Wait a minute. Bailey: So, there design has a pond in it... Atkins: Dee is right, it's an add alternate that we would bid and then choose to exercise depending upon the number. Champion: It says here that the total estimating cost including the alternate is $140,000. Atkins: That's correct. O'Donnell: That's if you choose to use it. Atkins: That's if you choose to use it. We give you an estimate on any alternates .that are bid. Lehman: So when the bid comes in we can choose or not to... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 16 of 40 Atkins: The road and the parking lot are already financed. That's done. Fosse: And they're already bid. Atkins: That's over with. This is for the construction ora dog park. In the construction of this dog park, an alternate is adding a lake. Bailey: That was part of DogPAC's plan? Okay, got it. O'Donnell: Have they done...I know they've done some fundraising...how successful is that? Atkins: They have, at last count, Mike, about $16,000 in cash and $12,000-$14,000 in pledges. So, we're assuming they can get their hands on $30,000 fairly quickly. O'Donnell: We're talking short-term here. What is short-term? Atkins: Five years would be the most that I would recommend...at an interest rate.., so there's no out of pocket expense to the City. This is simply advancing the money. Elliott: Steve, my understanding, this would not be concrete paving...it's chip-seal? Fosse: That's correct, it is chip-seal. Atkins: I think what happens is that you put in these alternates and the numbers jump dramatically. They may come back and someone has said... 'By the way, I'm going to write you a big check to the dog park and we'd like to add this element to it...' - then we'll deal with it at that time. O'Donnell: It's just confusing. Atkins: Yes, Mike, I can understand that, particularly since we're a player in the game of financing. Normally in these kind of projects, a park project, we would be financing the whole thing and wouldn't have a partner in this. Lehman: The important thing to remember here is that the bid is for what was originally proposed with an alternate, which we can choose or not choose to accept. O'Donnell: More important than that Ernie is to remember that it's a loan. Lehman: Right. Bailey: My question, too, is DogPAC's feeling of the capacity to pay back a loan of $140,000 versus $70,000 - so it's not only our decision but...what input have they provided. ! mean, of course they'd like the pond, but what have they said about it? We'll hear from them tomorrow? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 17 of 40 Atkins: I'm assuming they will come tomorrow to speak to that issue. Rick, is there anything we're missing in the discussions that you've had with the dog park people? Fosse: No, I think we've covered it. Atkins: The big thing is... even.., all lyou're doing tomorrow night is approving plans and specs. We have really no major commitments other than some design work that we put into the thing. Theylwere expecting that we would provide them a loan for $70,000 on a short-term basis and we will put that document together. Lehman: Other agenda items for Rick before he escapes? Thank you, Rick. ITEM 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES OF TIiE IOWA CITY HOUSING AND INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT. Champion: I have a question on Item 14, which is the fees for the housing inspector. Now, I know we want them to be self-supporting. Atkins: And they are. Champion: They are? Atkins: Yes. Champion: Is it my understanding that ihey need to raise the fees in order to have another inspector? Atkins: Yes. Champion: If they're going to have another inspector, it seems to me they're going to be able to inspect more places and Collect more money, so why do we have to raise the fees? Are there going to b~ new inspections? Boothroy: That's correct. There woul[t be an increasing in the revenue generated by another inspector positjon. $6,000-~8,000 we're thinking. It's mostly the single-family homes that we ve identified through public records that are more than likely rental, we just don't have the staff right now to get those enlisted in the rolls. We figure that's probably about $8,000 in revenue there. That doesn't get us to where we want to get. Elliott: I have a question and this shows my ignorance unfortunately, but it says presently the fees are $110 per structure, $15 per unit, and $5 per bedroom, which for a 12- apartment, twenty-four bedroom building equals $200 and - how do you come up This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 18 of 40 with that figure. You don't add all of those apparently? Well, then I come up with $410 dollars. Boothroy: That's every two years. Lehman: It's every other year. Boothroy: It's every other year that we inspect. Elliott: But the cost is $410...but ifs only every two years. Okay. Champion: That's a nicer way to put it!..it sounds a little cheaper. Vanderhoef: Here's my ignorance...what is HQS? Boothroy: It's Housing Quality Standard, which means it's the inspection for Section 8 administration. Vanderhoef: Section 8? Boothroy: That's right, anyone who is receiving Section 8 is required to have their unit inspected on a yearly basis.i Lehman: How much are we going toI generate by increasing the inspection fees? I'm sure it's here somewhere. Boothroy: Approximately $30,000. Lehman: $30,000? , Elliott: Will the single family homes remain unlicensed if their inspected or do you get a license after being inspected? Boothroy: They would receive a valid rental permit after they complete the inspection. Elliott: Because it says here allow currently unlicensed single family homes. They will become licensed? Boothroy: Right. Lehman: Single family rental properties. Elliott: Yes. Boothroy: Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 19 of 40 Lehman: Now we generate...we generate more fees than it costs to make the inspections by some sort of margin. Boothroy: Our revenue exceed expenditures by approximately $30,000 this year. Lehman: Okay, that's the question. Champion: What makes a single-family home a rental? If the person who owns the home is not living there? Boothroy: That's right. Champion: Okay, but if you own a home and you rent a room, is that a rental? Boothroy: No, it is not. As long as it is owner occupied, it is not a rental. Champion: What if you rent three rooms, then is that a rental? I'm just curious. Boothroy: That would depend upon the zone that you're in. O'Donnell: So the owner has to be out 0fthe house, is that what you're saying? Boothroy: The owner would still have to be in the house but there are zones where you can rent up to three unrelated people. Champion: Okay, if the owner is not in:the house then it's considered a rental? Boothroy: Yes. Champion: Okay, that seems logical. Lehman: The increased fees will increase the revenue by approximately $30,000 a year. The total revenue for inspections is approximately how much per year? Boothroy: $330,000 or $335,000 in reCenue for the last year. Lehman: That's total? (TAPE ENDg) (TAPE 05-50 SIDE A) Lehman: This is just rental? Boothroy: No, just rental, that's right. Elliott: The...ah...I was looking at something here...two inspection cycles reveal no violations or no significant violations, then there would be no further inspections? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 20 of 40 That is what I had wanted sdme time ago...but not unlimited. It seems to me that there should be a time limit.i..two years or four years or something, not forever. Boothroy: Right, we would still go out two years later, but as long as we received from those property managers or owneis the self-certification, documents that we give them, and if saw no violations in ~11 of the common areas then we would not need to inspect the entire building, i Champion: Oh, okay. O'Donnell: It's what you asked for, bas!cally. Elliott: No, I thought you would noi have any inspections for a period of years, but I just think...I guess I'm not willigg to rely on those...I would think for maybe four years or maybe even six years, but some time, I think there needs to be a means of getting back and see what tt~e stove looked like, see what the refrigerator looks like. Boothroy: Sure. The way that it is cor~structed now is that you would have two cycles, four years, of no violations withln a unit and then the next two-year cycle if the owner were to fill out the self-certification form we would not go into any units. It would be our discretion to r~ot go into any units but it would be our discretion. Lehman: You could choose to? Boothroy: Absolutely. Elliott: Okay, good. And you coul, go in if there is a complaint? Boothroy: That' s right, always. Elliott: Okay, then I'm fine. Vanderhoef: And they're certifying that ~11 of these things are taken care of, so that's another piece of security. Champion: You could always just do a!random room or apartment. They really at your mercy basically... (Laughter) , Lehman: Tell me, Kevin, don't you find that you have certain property owners and rental property owners that you chn pretty much know what to expect when you got there? Boothroy: Absolutely. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 21 of 40 Lehman: If you didn't, you wouldn't even be talking about letting them do a self- certification and you always have the option of the inspecting it? Boothroy: The discretion is always ou~s when we're out to a property. · O'Donnell: It can be complaint activated, Ernie. Lehman: Or they can just decide to dO it. Bailey: If you're in a common area... Lehman: Okay, other questions for tl~ese folks? Champion: Thank you. ITEM 18. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CONCERNING MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION'S 2005 UPDATING OF RATES FOR BASIC CABLE SERVICES. O'Dormell: I have a question on 18. Elliott: Are you the inspector general, then? (Laughter) Thank you. O'Donnell: Basically, I want to know.. ;what is this saying? Vanderhoef: What is what? O'Donnell: 18, what does it mean? Helling: It means that annually we review the information that the cable company submits to the Federal Communications Commission regarding their basic rates and what they're allowed to charge. !That's the only...and you've heard me say before...that's the only rate we can have any regulatory authority over. We review that information and make a determination of whether or not it's compliant with the formulas of the FCC and if it is, they establish a maximum permitted rate for their basic tier. They can charge at or below that. They can't charge above it. O'Donnell: So this is related to the rate increase? Bailey: They've already increased the rates. Helling: It's increased as of August 1st. Now, there may be a glitch there. There may have been an issue that we may ask you to defer this for a couple of weeks. I'm not sure, but we have to find out. There may be some misinformation that we need to get corrected. It's nothing that I don't think can't be resolved with the cable company but it may take a little time. I'm not sure but we'll find out tomorrow. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 22 of 40 Bailey: So, to challenge, we either approve or challenge. What does it mean to challenge? Helling: We have done that before. Basically, they come up with a maximum permitted rate that we think is higher than the formulas allow and we have done that in the past and those have been resolved. O'Donnell: It's called rabbit ears. (Laughter) Helling: Something like that. Bailey: Well, given that they just changed the must carry channel...given that the channel quality has diminished, I can't see that they...it's amazing to me that they can charge that much. Elliott: Yep, I talked with Dale this afternoon about that and my question was 'Why do we even bother?', I mean we have so little we can do. Lehman: Well, I think we do have to bother to make sure that they comply with Federal regulations. We have saved our folks some money in the past. Helling: We have, that's correct. It's complicated, it's not as simple as they told us it would be, but I think we have obligation since the Federal Government does allow us regulate to that extent, that we probably have a obligation to go ahead and do it. Champion: And it is a free enterprise system, that's the other thing. If we had a different cable company that would probably more than anything, maybe not, but on the other hand maybe all of us would be better off without TV, period. O'Donnell: Get a life. Lehman: Would you like to have an ordinance drawn up to that effect? Champion: That no person under 30 cain watch TV. Wilburn: Is that an arbitrary age? Lehman: Careful, we're going to go ~o 50. O'Donnell: How many televisions do ~ou have? Lehman: You don't have to answer that, Connie. Bailey: So, Dale, you said that we may have to defer this? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 23 of 40 Helling: Possibly. Lehman: You'll let us know tomorrow night? Helling: Yes, I'll let you know before you vote. O'Donnell: Thank you, Dale. ITEM 9. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION iAND FEES" CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINE AND PENALTIES," SECTION 8, ENTITLED "PARKING VIOLATIONS," TITLE 9, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "PARKING REGULATIONS," SECTION 10, ENTITLED "PARKING FOR LOADING AND UNDLOADING" AND SECTION 14, ENTITLED "ENFORCEMENT," AND ADDING NEW SECTION 15 ENTITLED "LIBRARY PARKING" TO INCREASE AVAILABILTY OF PARKING FOR LIBRARY PATRONS, TO ESTABLISH FINES FOR LIBRARY PARKING VIOLATIONS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED ENFORCEMENT OF LOADING ZONE VIOLATIONS. Elliott: Item 9 1 would like to look at. Lehman: Item 9? Elliott: Yeah. I apologize to Susan, I called her this afternoon and I wanted to talk with her...but I just...giving a new ticket every ten minutes just does not... Bailey: Is a good idea. Elliott: No, no, it does not...I can not... Bailey: Those are abused all the time. Lehman: Can I invite you to the microphone? Let Susan explain this to the whole Council. Craig: Okay, well, I got a heads up from Bob because he did leave me a message so I brought some statistics. Elliott: Good. Craig: You know how us librarians are. We have a wonderful new building. We have set all kinds of records for use this year. We have five parking spaces. Five twenty-minute parking spaces and I have gotten very positive feedback from people that they feel they are well policed, that there is turnover. Then, from This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 24 of 40 other people I hear, 'You know, it looks like the same people are in that slot for hours at a time'. The situation now is if you park in a twenty-minute spot and you know, practically speaking you're there longer than twenty-minutes before you get your first ticket. Because we don't go out there every twenty-minutes. We go mark the tires and probably half-an-hour later, if they didn't get caught up doing something else, they go out and ticket if a vehicle is still there. O'Donnell: Who are the we? Craig: We is...the library maintenance staff is authorized to write tickets and they have a ticket book and we ticket only those seven places in front of the building and occasionally in the alley if someone is blocking the access for our van that goes in and out for the book drops and stuff and someone is there for longer than the ordinance allows in the alley, we will ticket right there behind the library, too. O'Donnell: It's not as though there isn't an option very close. Lehman: There is a parking ramp a half a block away. Bailey: I've watched people park in those spots at the old library and go to lunch. Not even walk through the library. Elliott: I have no problem with the thirty minutes. Craig: We're saying it should be aS10 ticket. People right now...people can park there for $5 for two-and-a-half h0urs. It's become the parking for the Java House, frankly. Champion: I love the fact that those parking spaces are there. I think they're very, very convenient. Lehman: And it's not good if they don't turn over, they're worthless. Craig: Right. Elliott: Again, my concern is not with the thirty minutes, it's with the ten minutes and the initial towing without even a ticket. Champion: Why, it says right there 'For Library Use Only'. Craig: The towing, we're only asking for towing on the 'Book Return Only' spot, not on those other five places, we ~Vould write a ticket first. We would not go out there and tow when we saw a car. Elliott: If somebody, let's say I have a child with me and I want to go in and turn in a book and I'm in there for more than ten minutes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 25 of 40 Champion: You don't go in to tum in a book. Bailey: There's a drop. Elliott: I go in to turn in things. Champion: Then go park somewhere else. Elliott: If they go in to turn it in. Champion: No, that's not what the parking spot is for. Craig: You don't have to. The only thing you have come into the building to turn in is an art print. Elliott: Yeah, don't have to, but say they do. Lehman: Then they take a chance on a ticket. Elliott: I just don't like a ticket every ten minutes, it is just not right. Lehman: Then don't park in that spot. Elliott: Obviously, Susan, nobody else agrees with me so there's no problem for you. Bailey: The intent of that space... Craig: I want you to think that if you had a choice o£ getting a $100 ticket in a handicapped spot and getting towed in the 'Book Drop Only' spot, you'd choose the $100 ticket. Elliott: I would never park in a handicapped spot...but to be in there for twenty minutes and get two tickets, boy... Craig: If you're in there for twenty minutes, you will not get two tickets. Elliott: You can. Craig: No. Wilbum: Bob, I think you'd be chain fioning the convenience of being able to drop your book in a slot and walk away. Elliott: To get a ticket every ten minutes is just abhorrent to me. This represents only a reasona'bly accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 26 of 40 Lehman: It is to me to and I'll be damned ifI am going to park there. Craig: Please don't. Elliott: I'm glad you came, thanks,, Susan. Atkins: Anything for Chris, loading zones? Elliott: No. Bailey: No. Champion: I think we should sign it that way, Susan. Lehman: Oh, it will be signed. Craig: The signs will be bigger than the cars. Elliott: Thanks for giving up your evening. O'Donnell: ! think it's a good idea. It just encourages turnover. Vanderhoefi Ahh .... are we going to...is the Council interested in- Champion: Loading zones? Lehman: Wait a minute. Connie is going to unload, get in the zone. Champion: Where is he going? O'Brien: I was told to get a drink of water because I knew I would be up here for a while because Connie is full of questions tonight. (Laughter) Champion: Let's talk about loading zones. I think I've lost it now. The only thing that is not addressed in here is the parking in the middle of the Dubuque Street. Did we talk about that at all? Dilkes: We already have an ordinance. Champion: But it's not enforced. Dilkes: But that wouldn't be addressed in a new ordinance, that's an enforcement issue. Lehman: He's the enforcer. Dilkes: You can talk to him. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 27 of 40 Lehman: Talk to him. Champion: Okay. Vanderhoef: Walk out there and do it. Champion: I'm not telling him anything he doesn't already know. O'Brien: We've actually spoken with our staff on that as well. Once again, one of the difficulties you run into is the length of time it takes for deliveries and for us to enforce to the letter, which is the 30 minutes, at times, we want to make sure they're actively loading and unloading. Champion: That doesn't bother me. O'Brien: For the ones who aren't, one of the things you'll run into...and not to say that...what we run into is the 'Why don't they have a ticket? They were here when I got here. Now I'm going to leave and they're still here and they still don't have a citation'. Enforcement depends somewhat on what's going on around it. The smaller vehicles that are in the...whether it's working on ATMs, working on rental properties, we do try to get those more than the delivery vehicles just because the nature of the business, but a forty-foot delivery vehicle takes up three times as much space so it may give the impression that nothing is being enforced when in fact we're trying to make sure those delivery vehicles get their stuff done and get out. Champion: The smaller vehicles are frequently there for five minutes or less. O'Brien: Correct, it's tough to catch them a lot of times, especially the personal vehicles, loading and unloading are their apartments, or running in - Champion: Right, sometimes they don'l have a piece of furniture they've got to take to their apartment and there isn't another place to park. O'Brien: We try to push them towards the alleys to get out of the center lane, offer that up. Lehman: They don't really hurt you anyway because they're in and out and then gone. Champion: No, they're not hurting anyone. Frankly, it's the huge vehicles with their motor running making all this horrible noise and the smell and ! can't leave my front door open. Lehman: So it's a front door issue. It's a personal problem. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 28 of 40 Champion: Well, it is. Plus, it's very noisy in a place of business to have those trucks out there for three hours, so that's why I was hoping we could find some way to get a parking...what do you call it? "Parking is reserved for...- O'Brien: Well, theres two things. With this ordinance, what we're hoping to do is that receiving more frequent tickets will push the...the other problem with the delivery vehicles is personal vehicles in their loading spaces. That's where a lot of the problems stem from.: That and for several years back, it's sort of been allowed for the vehicles in ~he middle of the street and maybe they've gotten comfortable with it. We've called and spoken to the Budweiser and Flex Sales representatives and they've~said they're going to try to make a conscious effort to their people in the commercial zone if it's possible. Problem is that the personal vehicles are there so that's Why we're making this ordinance change. Champion: You're right, it's impossible for them to use those. It really is. O'Brien: Correct, and even when they are open I think it's in the back of their mind...they pull on to Dubuque Street and even if there is an open loading zone, and I believe that the code states within 1100 or 150 feet they're required to park in that loading zone if it's open. Champion: What if we enforced the small vehicles in the commercial loading zones, got them out of there. O'Brien: Correct and that's what we're attempting to do. Champion: Then why couldn't we make another loading zone in from of the Sports Column so they get all the noise and then say 'You have to use a loading zone.' There would be three loading zones then within very short distance. Two of them at Iowa Avenue and Dubuque,...then why can't we do a loading zone in that parking...the only people who park there are people who work at the sports Column. Elliott: You mean remove the parking meters and parking and making it a loading zone? Schreiber: It's already so hard to park down there and now to start removing additional spots. Champion: But it's only the Sports Column people who park there. Schreiber: But I've parked down a few times. Lehman: Go to the ramp, fella. Schreiber: Well, now I live two blocks from downtown, I don't need to drive downtown, but for people who live farther away. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 29 of 40 Elliott: I have a question about the trucks running. How much of an inconvenience is it to turn off the engine of a diesel? Champion: It's refrigeration. Bailey: And in the winter it's a difficulty. Elliott: In the cold weather it is. Bailey: Of course, you don't open your door in the winter. Elliott: But in the summer when a beer truck is there for an hour or more they can turn off their engine. O'Donnell: Part of this is that there is no parking in the alleys for commercial delivery vehicles because you have ~oo many cars in the alley. Lehman: We don't have any alleys in that block, either. Wilburn: There's one right next to th~ Sports Column. Champion: None of them are wide enough for delivery trucks. Bailey: Then your alley is totally blocked up. Champion: They totally block the alley and then you're like the other alley over by Plaza Center One. It's always blocked up because there is no place for delivery trucks to park. We need commemial deliveries, there's no doubt about it, but they abuse the parking we've tried to provide for them. O'Brien: Well, we've given them their warning shot through the phones that I've given, so now it's time to see if they'lll abide by it. O'Donnell: Okay, great. Lehman: You 'da man. Bailey: I do have a concern that this ordinance is effective October 1st and people's habits will be well engrained by then. O'Brien: That has to do with the readings and such. Bailey: I understand that, but I assume we'll be doing vigorous enforcement up until then. O'Brien: Correct, we can just only do it every two hours and that's the big issue. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 30 of 40 Lehman: We'll expedite it at the next meeting. Vanderhoef: Well, theres three different ones that I'm wondering. We have a request for expedited on number 8 and I looked at number 9 and 10 to see if we wanted to collapse those and 11. 9, 10, 11 and move this us and get as much of this done before the students get back. Champion I don't have any problems with that. Karr: With the second considerations you can pass and adopt, but Item 9 is the first consideration so without a special meeting it would still be the next meeting before it's adopted, but you could still do that and change the effective date on the ordinance for 9. Champion: Is there any support or anyone but me for another loading zone on Dubuque Street? Lehman: I don't have a problem with what you're suggesting. As long as people are basically storing their cars there who work there, but I don't know how the rest of your neighbors feel on the street. Champion: Maybe I'll ask them. Bailey: Yeah. Vanderhoefi The point is, if you say it's the Sports Column employees that are parking there, then what parking space are they going to go to next? Champion: A ramp. Elliott: If they didn't, someone else would. Champion: Well, in front of my store it's the people who own the pizza and Indian restaurant who park there all day. It's amazing to me that the merchants are the ones that park in the spaces all the time. Lehman: You can have those enforced, Connie. It's my complaint basis, Connie, and you can save your complaints for those folks that enforce it. You call and if they park there more than an hour a meter and you ask, they will ticket the car. O'Brien: There is actually...one of the mechanisms we have to enforce is to prevent meter feeding. It's actually an ordinance you have...but the difficulty you run in to, and I just had this happen... I just had a phone call about it this week is...if they're there over an hour and then they still feed their meter and you write them a citation on a meter they have paid for, you run into some PR issues. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 31 of 40 Lehman: Oh, it's PR all the way, but so is a regular ticket. O'Brien: Correct, but a lot of people are willing to take that if they didn't feed the meter. Elliott: If I've paid for my meter then I don't think ! deserve a ticket. Lehman: Well, that's the way that people feel in front of your store who park there all day and feed it all day. Champion: I'm not saying I want everybody ticketed who is feeding the meter, because a lot of customers go back and feed the meter too, but what I'm saying is why would a merchant do it? That's what irritates me. O'Brien: We could also request a turnover study if you'd like to look at some of the areas that you feel are problem areas to see what the actual turnover rates are. That's something we've done in the pas through Jeff in Planning. Champion: I don't think parking is a problem for my customers. Most of them park in a ramp or are willing to drive around forever until they find a space, or they park in the middle of the street, run in, get package...they don't stay there. Lehman: Do they drive trucks and let them run? Champion: No. My problem is the abuse of the loading zones because it creates a lot of noise and it creates also a lot of congestion on Dubuque Street and people jaywalk and...it's all dangerous. O'Brien: This gives us a tool to address that by giving us 30-minute enforcement of it... so we're hoping that - Elliott: I just find it interesting that merchants allow people who work in their businesses to park there. Champion: The owners are doing the same thing. Vanderhoef: The Airliner. Lehman: Do we have anything else for him? Champion: Thank you very much. O'Brien: You guys have a lovely evening. O'Donnell: Too late for that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 32 of 40 Elliott: I will say that as the enforcer, I would be must more apt to listen to you than I would to listen to me. O'Brien: We have a couple who are actually bigger than I am. Elliott: Uh-oh. Champion: Okay, I'm going to check with those merchants about another loading zone over there. Vanderhoef: Is everybody okay with collapsing those others? Get two readings out of the way? Bailey: Sure. O'Donnell: Yes. Vanderhoef: Okay. Dilkes: You need to change the effective date on 9 then, too. Karr: Well, if you're just going to give it first consideration, amend it on the floor to another date and then we'll take care of it by the time you collapse it. Champion: What were you talking about, Dee, I missed it? Vanderhoef: Where is the date? Bailey: It's October 1 on 9. Vanderhoef: I don't see it. Bailey: It's at the very, very end of the ordinance. Vanderhoef: Of the ordinance? Oh, it's not in the comments? Dilkes: Let's just say September 15 because we have to get is published before. O'Donnell: Are we on Council Time? Lehman: Actually, it depends on how long Council Time is because I have been requested that we have a quick break. Bailey: I have two items for Council Time. Lehman: Okay, quick break. Go. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 33 of 40 Lehman: Are there any more agenda items that anyone wants to do? Elliott: I've been shot down enough tonight. Council Time Lehman: Alright, Council Time. IP13 of 8/11 Packet- Historic Preservation Commission: Auenst 2, 2005 Bailey: I have a couple of items for Council Time. First of all, I have some concerns about the attendance with Historic Preservation Commission. Attendance hasn't been very good and they didn't have a quorum at their last meeting. I think something should be done. Atkins: Reginia, summertime attendance at boards and commission, traditionally, is not good. Bailey: Right, but when people are required to come before the Historic Preservation and they count on that meeting and they don't have quorum and can't make a decision. I think that's problematic. Atkins: I would agree with you. Vanderhoef: There's another problem also because they have trouble...we have some very small districts that require a member and we can't get the state to change the law, as I understand it, so that we can combine and not have one for each little district...those people, a lot of times, don't come unless there is an issue for their district. Lehman: But that's something we need to address. Bailey: Can we change quorum requirements? Atkins: Could you... Dilkes: You might be able to change quorum requirements. Atkins: Maybe we should expand the commission. Is it seven now? Atkins: Maybe go to eleven so you have some at-large members? Bailey: They used to have a smaller review group that did reviews. That might be something too, we require this and then if you come with your property and your architect and can't have a decision made, that's not right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 34 of 40 Champion: No, that's not right. Lehman: I agree with you. I'd hate to see a quorum be less than a majority. On the other hand, during the months when we can anticipate that someone will not be there, then the applicant should be advised and meetings changed so that they don't come and then find there isn't a meeting. Bailey: These minutes seem to indicate that it was somewhat ora surprise. Since we didn't have quorum we'll have a work session instead because people weren't there. Atkins: Do you have on your pending list Historic Preservations? Let's check on that tomorrow. We'll have this in front of you shortly. Bailey: If this were a non-profit board the chair would simply talk to some of these members and be clear about if they can continue to fulfill their obligation. Elliott: Can you not have an alternate? Lehman: I don't think you can. Vanderhoefi I'm not sure. But the sad part of it is...the vacation thing...but these are things that are right now during the construction time. Bailey: Vacation and construction time. Vanderhoef: So, ahhh .... certainly notices to people, just in general, that you need to get started early in the season, like our developers...they get started earlier but they keep bringing stuff in towards the end depending upon what kind of good season they've had or not. Bailey: Or talking to members and making sure the meeting times continues to work with schedules. Elliott: Who is the staffperson assigned to that? Aktins: Sunil. Elliott: If you could just talk with the chairperson, I'd like to see them rectify it themselves. Atkins: I understand your point and it's well taken, particularly the time of year. This is when folks need to be there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 35 of 40 Champion: Maybe it could change the quorum by legal means by combining those small districts. I don't know. Bailey: And that's a State requirement? Champion: Yes. Like Woodlawn, that's a small street but it has to have one person. Summit Street has to have one person. Lehman: I'd hate to see a quorum less than majority. Dilkes: Maybe Planning has looked at this. I think a combination of districts is a possibility. The law says you have to have one person district. There may be some.., at least in the statute it doesn't have specific requirements.., there are specific district requirements but there is no prohibition if all of the requirements were met in combining them. Champion: That might a good idea. Lehman: That would be a good idea. Elliott: Yeah. Bailey: I just think that also, though, this is a role of the chair to make sure that people understand their responsibilities. Elliott: I guess I'm just surprised at that because they seem to be people dedicated to wanting to accomplish something and it's surprising. Champion: I think people are talked into doing it. 'We have to have a representative, would you do it?' and then they don't go to the meetings because they're just doing it so the commission fills that. I noticed one of the persons from Woodland is rarely there. Bailey: But another at-large person is rarely there. Elliott: I think combining districts... Lehman: That's a great idea. Elliott: A good thought. Champion: Great idea. Dilkes: Again, it may be that someone has talked to Historic Preservation people and that's not possible because of their regulations, but I can certainly talk to Karin about it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 36 of 40 IP6 of 8/11 Packet - Angel Statue In City Park Bailey: Then, Eleanor, could you talk about this Angel Statue issue? Because I have some concerns since we don't have a policy. For me, it really is quite an overt religious representation but I understand it's not an established one. Dilkes: Well, the request came to the Parks and Recreation Commission. I actually heard from a woman who was involved in the group but had some concerns about whether it would be viewed as a religious symbol and so I talked to Terry and they requested an opinion of my office before they made a decision, or made a decision contingent upon opinion of my office that it wouldn't violate the establishment clause. My opinion is that it wouldn't. It's got a secular purpose, etc. All the legal mumbo-jumbo...it's in the memo. That, of course, doesn't mean that it has to go there. Just because legally it doesn't violate the establishment clause, in my opinion, does not mean that it has to go there. It means it can go there. Elliott: Review again...Reginia, what's the purpose of that? Champion: It's a memorial for people who have lost children. Bailey: I understand that we do have memorials in parks, which are typically rocks, trees or benches, which seem to be more of a park-like function. This, honestly, seems more ora...it would seem more appropriate...not as appropriate in a park, from my perspective. Champion: I had some problems with it too, Reginia, but my problem came mainly from the organization that organized this. It's called the Christmas whatever and that immediately brought out flares. Elliott: Reginia and I were talking about this and my thinking is, to me, angels are not terribly religious to me. You know, they're angels. People have their personal angel and guardian angels, and - Dilkes: But you'll get very different views of that, Bob. Elliott: I would be more interested in what is written on it as opposed to...that's where I would have a very strong concern. Dilkes: And we talked about the inscription on it being 'for those who have lost children'. It's very secular. Bailey: My primary concern is how close are we to having a policy for these kind of memorials in our parks and then what kinds of doors does this open up since we don't currently have a policy, because that's the concern. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 37 of 40 Dilkes: That was my concern, too. That's why in the memo I suggested that they have...the point is, what do you do with the next request that comes in and the one after that? How do you make decisions about these things? So, that's why I suggested that a policy be developed. I don't know where Terry is with that. Champion: I don't think we should allow this until we have a policy. Vanderhoef: Just defer it indefinitely until we have a formal policy. Dilkes: It's not on your formal agenda. Bailey: It was in the info packet so I just wanted to get a sense of it. Dilkes: I think Terry and I and Steve talked about this and the idea was.., as I understand it, the Parks and Recreation has approved the placement of art objects and that kind of thing in the parks. There has never been a formal review process by the City Council, but the concern was that it was of a different nature and that the Council should be aware of it so that if you do have concerns about it and want to put the brakes on a little bit then that can happen before it's too far down the road. Lehman: And they're going to be formulating a policy? Parks and Rec will be formulating a policy? Dilkes: Yes, which will be reviewed by us. Elliott: That would be fine with me, to say that we're going to defer until we have a policy. Because, this is certainly at least a grey area. Bailey: A bench is one thing. This is a completely different... Schreiber: Is it labeled the Christmas Box Angel? It's just what it stated here? Dilkes: I'm quite clear on the establishment clause, I don't have a problem with the establishment clause. I have a problem with the lack of a policy. Bailey: I got that it was real clear on that, but I also think that without a policy we open a door and I think we should be real clear on our expectations for how things are placed in parks. North Dodge and Dubuque Street Construction Proiects O'Donnell: I have a couple of questions for Steve. The construction on North Dodge. Are we on schedule for that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 38 of 40 Atkins: That last I checked with Rick it's probably a month behind. It's not our project, we're not doing the day-to-day management and there have been some difficulties. Dilkes: I'm sorry, we missed your question up here, Mike. Atkins: Dodge Street on schedules. O'Donnell: And the Dubuque Street. Atkins: That's okay, we should wrap that up in the fall. There shouldn't be any reason why that one won't be finished. Elliott: And we're obviously set up for football traffic so we know what we're going to do, who's going to do it, who's going to be there...because there's going to be a bunch of unhappy people, I guarantee that. Champion: They're not happy any football weekend. Lehman: Of course, if you win it makes the traffic a lot more tolerable. ITEM 2D(2) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-FAMILY OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME LOCATED ON LOT 12, LONGFELLOW MANOR UNDER THE AFFORDABLE DREAM HOME OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SAID HEARING, AND DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND INSPECTION SERVICES TO PLACE SAID PLANS ON FILE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. Vanderhoef: I've got a couple of questions. Ahhh...on the consent calendar about the Affordable Dream House in Longfellow Manor. I know that there are at least some homes in there that belong to the Greater Iowa Housing Fellowship. Atkins: A number of them do, that's correct. Vanderhoefi I wondered how many other homes are in there that may be Section 8 or Low Income Housing before we put in affordable... Atkins: Without violating privacy's, I can get you a count there, who the sponsors are, that's not a problem, I can do that. Vanderhoef: There is considerable low-income housing in that Longfellow School District and ! want a little idea of what's happening there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 39 of 40 Atkins: I'll put something together for you, that's fine. IP5 of 8/11 Packet - Schedule of Outstanding Debt June 20~ 2005 Vanderhoef: The other thing, in reading the budget and the bonding review and so forth...if I knew it, then I had forgotten it, that we still pay property tax on the houses on Capitol Street that are owned by the transportation department and I've got two questions out of all that. What is the rental income from those homes and does the rental money go directly into transportation or does it go into the general fund? Now that we no longer have a transportation department, how do we? Atkins: That would probably be the parking fund that it would probably go into, Dee. I'll confirm that for you. The property tax, rental income, and where it goes. Wilbum: I was wondering if anyone else would be interested in having some type of communicae from the Council to the Human Rights Commission. In their minutes, several people were wondering or complaining that only X number of Council members were at that. Some kind of memo saying that we value the work that you all do. We try to make sure that there is coverage. If there is an unspoken expectation that we're all at every event that they plan, then I want to have input on when they have their event. Bailey: I'll second that. Wilburn: We just get invited to so many things...just a real... Lehman: That's a good point. They need to know that they're important to us and through whatever circumstances we did not have as many folks. Bailey: Last year's event was scheduled at a different time. Wasn't it during the League of Cities or something? Helling: The comment was in conjunction with the breakfast and a number of you were in Des Moines at the Iowa League of Cities meeting and they've been made aware of that. Wilbum: There was also a comment about the Youth Human Right Awards. You know, 'Only Dee and Ross were there.' Champion: That's good representation. Wilbum: Right, but that's just to say that we try to make sure there is representation, that we value the work that the program does, etc. Champion: We should probably write several people about that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. August 15, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 40 of 40 Wilburn: In particular because they are one of our commissions and not just any community group that is inviting us. Lehman: Good point. Anything else for Council time? O'Donnell: Nope. Schedule of Future Pending Items (IP2 of 8/11 Info Packet) Atkins: Pending items. Lehman: I really, really like Steve laying out the agenda for Pending Items. Aktins: You're okay with that? Lehman: Yeah, but they're getting on the agenda and they're going to get addressed and I think that's something we really need to do if we're ever going to get through them. Elliott: Now, we're going to hit all of these items on the 6th? Atkins: Yep, we're going to take a run at them. Bailey: No, six items on the 6th. Atkins: What that means is that I've got the item scheduled. I'll get the staff person scheduled and the written materials prepared. Now, whether you get through all of them or not, that's another thing. Some of these ought to move pretty quickly. Others... Elliott: I guess I'm thinking that funding priorities is going to take a half a day. Champion: Does the Human Rights Commission have any kind of equity in a subcommittee or anything? Atkins: I don't think so. So, we'll go with the items as they're listed? Lehman: Yes. Okay. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the August 15, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session.